leicsmac

To be honest, I'm not sure it's even about that. It's about her being more competent and moral in the job than a man who was ready to incite people to overthrow the results of a free and fair election to the point that they seriously tried last time out. Among other things.

...no other pertinent reasons for decision-making stand out then. Fair enough.

I'm going to go ahead and consider that the aim isn't at everyone working in London, but rather the ones rich enough to afford a nanny and yet are still complaining in their overweening self interest about paying about a fortieth of that nanny's salary extra to help other people.

On this topic; another report tonight about farmers going nuts about a very poor potato harvest, caused by excessive rain. These consequences are already becoming apparent. And we're not even in a corner of the world that it will hit hardest first.

The above being said, however, the closeness of the polls and the value of the electoral votes in each swing state means the gap between a Harris 300+ and a Trump 300+ is very, very small. So a "big" victory for either candidate is perfectly plausible.

Given that the last fivethirtyeight analysis had (out of 1000 modelled outcomes) Trump 514 wins, Harris 484 wins and 2 dead heats, I think anyone stating anything with certainty about the result is lying.

That's pretty much exactly what it is, sadly. Private money and market forces are doing at least some of the heavy lifting, but the evidence is rather stark that they alone are not enough. One could also make the argument that democratic governments have a weakness when it comes to projects like this as they require more time to deliver than the average democratic term, so there's little to no political capital in it, unlike shorter term projects - anyone can see how far down the spending list it is. A rather significant flaw, given the consequences of not getting the job done.

I mean, I get the legally - there's no rule against someone who has done as he has done from running again. It's just difficult to comprehend exactly how so many people are clearly OK with electing a man who has such views on women, minority groups, the future of the biosphere and is clearly willing to disrupt the democratic political process for the sake of his own power.

In the immediate term: resilience projects to protect against storm/flood surges in areas around the world like this, because it is the most imminent threat. In the short term: programs to harden food crops against both increased flood and drought, as well as more facilities for processing and treating potable water. In the longer term: reducing anthropogenic carbon emissions to a degree that global average carbon dioxide/other greenhouse gas levels and therefore global average temperatures level out as soon as possible. Every single point of a degree further up will yield stronger and worse consequences and we can only do so much to brace ourselves for them.

The news about events in Spain keeps getting worse. And it is likely just a preview of what's coming unless rapid and decisive action is taken.

Ah yes, I know of it. Clearly there's not enough London types looking for second or third rural homes in the area, given they're likely the only ones who could realistically afford most of them...

The greatest trick those who benefit most from gross inequality ever played was convincing enough people that it's a good thing to make that inequality democratic political policy.

Tbf there are far greater threats to food security out there (which the farmers do take seriously, but I'm not sure how many of other talking heads regarding this policy do).

... wouldn't happen to be Winslow/Swanbourne area, would it?

Margin Call is also excellent from a smaller scale view of the matter.

The darkly hilarious thing is that depending on who you talk to, this could be either candidate.

Yeah, in this specific situation, absolutely. I was talking more about generalities.

Appreciate the additional context. I think that with public services the way that they are at present, it's yet another situation where there are no good options, it's about choosing the best bad one. NB. I've no idea why some people still think laissez-faire measures do anything other than create greater inequality.

You wonder how such acts of blatant misinformation don't attract more attention from the press regulator.

...is this satire? Please tell me this is satire.

A dead heat? Possible, but unlikely.

To say nothing of his supporters.

This has been analysed before. If the margin of error breaks for Trump in the same way it did in 2016 and 2020, then he'll likely win with a decent majority. If being the key word in that sentence.

Yeah, fair enough, a person in his position (or in her position, in Hillary's case (shouldn't have said it at all). I stand by the difference in context though, and if folks can look past the playground insults (that Trump made mainstream in such politics) I wonder exactly what one might call someone who would vote for the man considering his policy stance on various matters, to say nothing of his attitude towards directly inciting an insurrection attempt following an electoral loss. I'm not sure why he, or most of his followers, merit such a staunch defence.